American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: A comparison of three age groups☆,☆☆,★,★★,♢
Section snippets
Materials And Methods
The sample consisted of 63 subjects, 38 female and 25 male, and was collected based on these criteria: (1) Pretreatment (mean 8.0 years) and posttreatment (mean 8.8 years) lateral cephalograms made on the same cephalostat and of good quality; (2) a developing Class III malocclusion identified by a combination of an ANB measurement of less than 1°, 40 a convexity measurement of less than 1 mm,41 a Wit's 42 denture base relationship of zero or less, an edge-to-edge incisor relation or anterior
Results
The annualized means and standard errors for all the measured values are given in Tables I through V and Fig. 2.Table I summarizes the mean changes in traditional cephalometric measurements.Variables Combined treated Combined control Treated 4-7 Control 4-7 Treated 7-10 Control 7-10 Treated 10-14 Control 10-14 Empty Cell Mean Empty Cell
Error Study
Dahlberg's formula53was used to determine the error standard deviations for the variables in each data set. Five treated subjects (five T1 and five T2 cephalograms) were selected at random. Each cephalogram was retraced, superimposed, and digitized and the error determined. For the conventional measures, linear measurements had error of less than 1 mm and angular measurements had an average error of 1.5°. The average error in the x-y coordinate data was slightly greater, but still did not
Discussion
The current study demonstrated a significant response to face mask/expansion therapy, which affected many areas of the dentofacial complex. Skeletal change was primarily a result of anterior and vertical movement of the maxillae. When maxillary change was compared as an annual rate and normal growth (control) subtracted, the results confirmed a true maxillary orthopedic effect resulting from treatment (SNA +2.51°, nasion ⊥ A point +1.96 mm, A point +2.39 mm). Other investigators11, 25have
Conclusion
Correction of a Class III malocclusion with face mask/expansion therapy appears to result from a combination of skeletal and dental changes that produce an improvement in the soft tissue profile. The treated group ( N = 63) demonstrated statistically significant hard and soft tissue movements affecting the entire dentofacial complex. Skeletal change was primarily a result of anterior and vertical movement of the maxillae. Mandibular position was directed backward and downward but with a minimal
References (57)
Palatal expansion: just the beginning of dentofacial orthopedics
Am J Orthod
(1970)- et al.
The morphology of the potential Class III skeletal pattern in the growing child
Am J Orthod
(1986) - et al.
Prevalence of malocclusion in children aged 14-18 years
Am J Orthod
(1951) - et al.
Mandibular prognathism
Am J Orthod
(1974) - et al.
Treatment effect of combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in severe skeletal Class III cases
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
(1987) - et al.
Dentofacial orthopedics versus orthodontics
J Am Dent Assoc
(1967) - et al.
Components of adult Class III malocclusion
Am J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(1984) - et al.
Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
(1996) Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
(1995)Biomechanical and clinical considerations of a modified protraction headgear
Am J Orthod
(1980)
Protraction of the maxillofacial complex
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
Extraoral traction and Class III treatment
Am J Orthod
A preliminary study of anterior maxillary displacement
Am J Orthod
Dentofacial changes produced by extraoral forward force in the Macaca irus
Am J Orthod
Protraction of maxilla in rhesus monkeys by controlled extraoral forces
Am J Orthod
Experimental and postexperimental responses to anteriorly directed extraoral force in young Macaca nemestrina
Am J Orthod
Osseointegrated titanium implants for maxillofacial protraction in monkeys
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony
Am J Orthod
An investigation of maxillary superimposition techniques using metallic implants
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
Effects of patient age on postorthodontic stability in Class II, Division I malocclusions
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
Age effects on orthodontic treatment: skeletodental assessments from the Johnston analysis
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in “borderline” Class II patients
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
Orthopedic approach to severe skeletal Class III malocclusion
Am J Orthod
Biomechanical effect of anterior directed extraoral forces on the craniofacial complex: a study using finite element method
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
Prediction of mandibular growth rotation
Am J Orthod
An orthopedic approach to the treatment of Class III malocclusion in young patients
J Clin Orthod
Rapid palatal expansion: a recommended prerequisite to Class III treatment
Trans Eur Orthod Soc
Cited by (0)
- ☆
aIn partial fulfillment of the requirements for certificates in Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry at the University of California at Los Angeles.
- ☆☆
bProfessor and Chair, Orthodontic Department, University of Southern California.
- ★
cProfessor and Chair, Section of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry at the University of California at Los Angeles.
- ★★
Reprint requests to: Dr. Andrew J. Kapust, 344 Cleveland Ave., Olympia, WA 98501.
- ♢
8/1/79322